ArcaneBoozery

From the many RPGs that I've played, I noticed that when you have running in the game (as in Shift Click to run), then walking is usually ridiculously slow, and you pretty much have to resort to running to get anywhere, whereas in games that only have walking (like Baldur's Gate), the walking is usually done at a brisk pace, which is just perfect. Running looks bad and kinda ruins the immersion for me. How many times do people run in the real world? Very rarely, only if there's some emergency, while usually they walk, and when your characters runs, it just looks bad. So I am definitely for Baldur's Gate type of brisk walking.

Well, ideally it would be nice, of course, if there was every kind of weapon in a game along with the associated weapon style, but given real world limitations in terms of time and money, I seriously doubt PE will have that, so if they put in Greatswords into the game, along with longswords/bastard swords, all of them will have to use the same fighting style. And if that's the case, chances are it's going to be the "hit slow but hard" style we already have in all of those other games, just because of how large those greatswords are. Since I personally would prefer a style oriented toward parrying, dodging, disarming and finesse type moves, I would love it if PE just concentrated on the smaller two handers such as longswords/bastard swords. Btw, here is an excellent example of the kind of two handed combat I would love to see in PE and in games in general: From the movie "First Knight", fast forward to about 1:20:

Hhhmm, yeah it's been a while since I saw that movie, so for some reason I kept picturing him with a greatsword, but I looked at it now on youtube, and you are right, he was a bad example to use. I probably associated him with it because Arnold was a big muscled dude. Anyways, the points still stand, but I won't use Conan as an example anymore.

No, I will spare you my uber fencing skills, especially since I already mentioned in this thread that most of my knowledge comes from reading about it, not actual practice. As far as using human history as basis for games, the point was that there are already a ton of RPGs out there that go with the giant greatsword approach (Bethesda games, Gothic games, The Witcher, etc), I am sure it won't kill any of you protesters if PE was one of the few that displayed two handed sword fighting with smaller longsword-type swords, which was the typical way it was done.

Sounds like they were mostly used against pikemen, since hacking out breaches in defenses would likely throw them at pikemen/spearmen (those were the most common defensive troops), but the overall point (supported by your quotes) is that this was a specialized weapon meant to serve certain roles on the battlefield. This is similar to how knights used lances on horseback, for a very specialized function. But expecting to see an adventurer carrying a lance or a greatsword around as an all-purpose weapon is completely different. From your quote: "However it would become unusable, as soon as the opposing forces collided with one another". Well, while adventuring, one would guess that you often have to fight inside buildings or caves or dungeons or tightly packed forests or groups of people, and such a weapon hardly seems practical. Also, it seems to be mostly an offensive weapon, as its increased size and mass would probably put the wielder at a disadvantage while defending/parrying blows, so if faced with an oppponent using a smaller sword, if he managed to dodge/sidestep/block your initial blow, you would probably be at his mercy.

Did Obsidian mention why they went with the Stamina/Health system instead of the typical health only approach? If so, anyone have a link? I don't recall seeing their reasoning for it. Two words. Dwarf Fortress. Sorry, couldn't help myself...

Wow, dude, just wow. I see Merlkir has already pointed out some things to you, I just want to add that if you think that "That entire video was a basic overhand chop to rising slash movement", you must really not know anything about longsword fighting. Sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth. As I mentioned, I am by no means an expert on it myself, but I had the pleasure of reading a few things on it, written by people who study medieval/renaissance era manuals written by the masters of the times, and who actually practice that type of swordplay. What's going on in that video is actually incredibly complex, although of course most of us wouldn't realize that just by looking at it. Western longsword fighting involves many different guards (the positions each fighter starts out with) that each have some specific purpose, attacks that counter those guards, the transitions from a guard, attack, or parry into another favorable position, maintaining the initiative in a fight, body position for maximum balance and cut power based on physics, and that's before we even get to the fancier stuff in the video, such as pommel hits, disarmament, grappling. It is like a high speed game of chess in some ways. But my other point is also that you are making a strawman argument. Aside from your incorrect understanding of swordplay, the main thrust of your argument seems to be that we shouldn't adopt more historical based two handed sword fighting because it will be way too complex and detailed for the average player to understand. But no one has asked for that, and several people already pointed this out to you, including myself. While real longsword fighting was indeed very detailed and technical, I don't think anyone here expects an isometric RPG to implement even a small fraction of those details/technicalities. We simply want two handed sword fighting to look different and have a different surface feel from the typical massive greatsword wielding brute. Instead of slow massive strokes, graceful looking sword movements, smaller longswords worn at the hip, stances and abilities that have names indicating technique and skill rather brute strength. I don't see how any of this would present any issues for the average RPG player. It's just a style thing.

Love that fight! I still think Rob Roy had the best sword fighting of any movie I ever saw. However, the sword Rob Roy used in that final fight was not the claymore we are talking about here. It was a one hander, it just happened to be bigger than the rapier Tim Roth was using, and while Rob Roy was a big strong guy, he used quite a bit of finesse and technique in blocking/parrying the Englishman's attacks. He did end up using his 2nd hand at the end (no spoilers ), but I don't think they ll be modeling that type of 2 handed swordplay in PE.

Well thanks for the detailed descriptions, although I never claimed to be an expert on swordplay, and neither should you , since your claims run counter to what people that actually work with these swords think (see 2nd link in my previous post for details). But you are missing my general point, which is not to make the combat super duper complex to make it uber realistic, but to simply adopt a fun historical alternative to the Conan type cliche of 2-handers we have now in every game.

I think the exact terminology differs between different times and countries and even groups, but in the most common terminology, longsword and bastard sword are probably the same thing, because bastard sword means its a hybrid between a 2-hander and a 1-hander, which is exactly what a longsword was in late medieval times. It's only in AD&D that there is a difference between the two, since they consider longsword a 1-hander. The historical longswords probably had a hilt that was long enough for a hand and a half (hence the name). The 2nd hand was placed on the end of the hilt and the pommel, allowing the sword to serve in both 1 handed and 2 handed circumstances. In the video above, the hilts seem longer since these guys just duel without shields, so that works for them, but such a hilt would make it hard to wield the sword 1 handed. Yeah, but claymores were pretty similar to the longsword (much more so than to the greatswords/flamberges/zweihenders). From WIkipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore): "The two-handed claymore seems to be an offshoot of Early Scottish medieval longswords". So my point still stands, that it would be more realistic/historical to have two handed swords be smaller and more finesse oriented than the typical RPG greatsword behemoth. As for being worn on the back, I've seen many people who practice swordplay/medieval recreation societies/etc claim that that is nonsense promoted by Hollywood, and that it's either outright impossible or extremely difficult to draw a weapon from the back, especially a large weapon, but even shorter swords. Here is a sample discussion of this: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5792 We have so many games now where a warrior can wield massive 2-handed greatswords in Conan-like fashion, that I just think it would be sweet to have one (PE) where two handed swords would be more about technique and finesse for a change, that's all.

In all fantasy/medieval type RPGs, the player usually has a choice between using a sword and shield combination, a one handed sword by itself (usually the least effective style), and a two handed sword for his sword oriented melee characters. In AD&D, the most popular type of one handed sword is called the longsword, and in most systems, the two handed sword is called something like greatsword or flamberge, and is typically a huge thing, close in length to a man's height, and is worn hanging from his back. This is really not realistic. Historically, greatswords/flamberges were a late comer, appearing in very late middle ages and renaissanse to counter the prevalent pikemen formations of those times. These swords were not meant to be used in sword fighting or duels, as they were too large and heavy to use against an opposing sword fighter. Instead, they were meant to hack off the sharp ends off pikes, and possibly hack away at gunpoweder infantry while those were reloading. They were a very specialized weapon, so it's kinda silly to see them being used by adventurers in RPGs as an all-purpose sword. On top of that, they were never hung from the back, as it is physically impossible to remove a weapon of that length from the scabbard on one's back (the arm won't go that far, there are some youtube videos on this). Instead, they were simply carried over the shoulder, like a spear. Meanwhile, the longsword that AD&D portrays as a one handed weapon was actually a hybrid weapon, that could be wielded in one hand with a shield, but could also be very effectively wielded in two hands. In fact, longswords are pretty famous as two handed weapons, because during the late middle ages, there were schools of sword fighting in Germany and Italy that specialized in longswords and developed very extensive and beautiful styles of fencing with them. Here is a great video displaying two handed longsword fighting: Anyway, I guess it's not a huge thing or anything, but given the developers' track record of fighting cliches and established approaches, I would love it if PE allowed longswords worn at the hip to be the two handed sword of choice instead of the typical greatsword, which would not only be more realistic and historically accurate, but also possibly lead to more finesse oriented two handed styles as opposed to the typical "swing slower but hit harder" approach.

Like most things in life, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I've played a bunch of games with both systems (BG1&2, P:T, NWN with RTwP, and ToEE, FO1&2, Arcanum, FFVII with TB). In general, TB allows for more precision and somewhat more tactics (as in specifying what every party member will do precisely, something not really practical with RTwP). However, RTwP allows the player to specify tactics to a large degree as well, so TB's advantage is not huge. The flip side is that pretty much every RPG I've ever played had a lot of trash fights, or trash phases during important fights, and TB is terrible during those. Waiting for each trash enemy and each party member to move and animate while the fight is already decided is annoying as hell and takes forever. For these reasons, I personally prefer RTwP, as I feel like it gives me almost as much tactical depth as TB but without the overhead.

I am not dipping into 1v1 fights, I stated in the post you are quoting that this applies to any fight, so I am not sure what you mean. I already explained how you cant prepare for this exploit (neither the AI nor you). If you disagree, look at my example ealier in the thread, and tell me how the AI can possibly prepare for your abuse of Magic Missile and such. As far as archers/melee interrupting spell casting with their physical attacks, it's a similar issue, and I would like it dealt with as well for similar reasons. The reason I did not bring it up as much is because at least mages have tactical defenses against archers/fighters, such as stone skin/immunity to weapons/etc, so they can deal with those somewhat, whereas a mage/caster can remove their protections with his own spells and then they are at the mercy of his quick hitting spells. Again, I am not talking about removing archers or spells or anything like that, I just want to remove the timed spell casting/active spell interruption mechanics, because they lead to exploits and abuse. and replace them with more strategic/tactical mechanics such as the rolls/checks thing described in my previous post. That's already taken care of in IE by one cast per round mechanic. Casting time simply refers to how long it takes to cast a spell, not how often you can cast it. In IE, even if it only takes 1/10th of a round to cast Magic Missile, that doesn't mean you can cast another right after, you have to wait until that round ends before you can cast the next spell. That's why I think the only real reason for casting time is the interruption thing in IE. And personally, I think higher level spells being the obvious choice to cast when available makes perfect sense. If lower level spells are overall as good as higher level ones (less powerful but quicker, etc), then you are not really getting more powerful as you level up, which is counter-intuitive.

As I already pointed out earlier, the way AD&D and most systems are structured, there are a lot more lower level spells available than higher levels ones, so there will certainly be enough to shut down the other guy(s) in any important battle, unless the NPCs are cheating. I only used the 1v1 scenario as an example, to keep it simple, but the principles that were illustrated work the same exact way in battles involving many participants on each side. For each caster with quick spells on my side, I can shut down one caster on the other side. Well, being interrupted and casting time are intimately linked in this case (in IE type gameplay). My assumption is that casting time was introduced into IE mostly in order to allow spells to be interrupted (it's not exactly a quick-draw type game, where whoever casts first wins, although you might disagree). If you remove the interruption effect, there doesn't seem to be much reason for casting time to remain, and that is why I brought up the casting time thing as a whole. The big difference with turn based gameplay is that everyone gets a turn of their own to do their action. During that turn, as you mentioned, they might be affected by certain game mechanics, but that's how it's meant to be. If you lose a roll or a check during your turn, you are submitting yourself to the game systems, and I have no problem with that. It's all part of the system as intended, and the player can take strategic steps to improve their chances (e.g. get an appropriate feat or cast some spell that buffs their concentration, etc). But with real time gameplay of IE, aside from game system stuff (like saving throws, resistances, etc), you can also be affected by player exploitation of game mechanics in ways that the designers did not intend. I don't think the designers of IE and AD&D ever intended Magic Missile and other low level spells to serve as a hard counter to higher level spells, but that's how the player can use them because of the side-effects of casting time/spell interruption. My original purpose with this thread was to simply bring this issue to the attention of other fans and hopefully developers. I did not have any specific solution in mind, but I like some of the stuff you brought up, like using rolls and checks. It might be a good idea to replace casting time/spell interruption with a system that is closer to the turn based approach in this regard. For example, if a mage is about to cast a spell, he/she might have to make a successful roll to succeed, and this roll could be affected by various factors, one of which could be whether or not the mage is being targetted by opponents, and another of which could be the power of the spell. This would make higher level spells harder to cast, especially under fire, but it would be within the game system, and thus allow the player to increase their chance of successful cast with proper feats/talents/level up choices, as well as possibly strategy/tactics (maybe casting other easier to cast spells that improve concentration first). The benefit of this system, as opposed to IE, is that it is impossible for one side to simply time their low level spell casts to shut down the opposition. Of course, this is just an example, and it would have to be fleshed out, and maybe it has problems with it, but you get my basic drift. Yeah, I obviously have no idea at this point of what kind of magic system PE will implement. I just created this thread to voice my concern about the biggest problem I saw in IE games, as far as magic went.

I am in! Would love to see a quest or even multiple quests like this. Although in the spirit of PE, I hope the clues would be more in dialogue, with different NPCs telling you quite a bit of background info, which contains important clues hidden within, but only if you carefully parse and analyze the text. Kinda like Agatha Christie's stuff.